The Honorable Patrick W. Murphy

1 The Honorable Patrick W. Murphy2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report11th Judicial DistrictMay 29, 2015 The Honorable Patrick W. MurphyFremont County Judicial Center136 Justice Center Road, Room 103 Dear Judge Murphy :Canon City, CO 81212 I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections:A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form.

2 In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at (please put the words Judicial Performance in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779.

3 Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President Summary of rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of is the highest possible score and a is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Patrick W. Murphy received an overall combined average grade of in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, , to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, , divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is (not shown below). GradeSample Size--CombinedAttorneyNon-attorneyJudge Murphy Average Grades (All Years)The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

4 (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Murphy s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their 1 NANANANANAC ombinedAverageScoreAttorneyTable Murphy Average Grades by YearNon-attorneyYear1 JurorAverageAll DistrictJudges*Non-JurorAverageAverage Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years)% MurphyComparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney PopulationAmong the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges receiving an interm evaluation in 2015 is , while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is Judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors.

5 The number of jurors in a judge s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. Non-JurorsTable table below shows Judge Murphy s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Size%* Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim Patrick W. MurphySurvey of Attorneys Regarding(Sample Size 31)All District Judges*Sample Size = 31 Patrick W. MurphyABCDFailDK/NAJudge Patrick W. MurphyAverage ( to scale)Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges1. Case Management:1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after Maintaining appropriate control over Promptly ruling on pre-trial Setting reasonable schedules for Case Management2.

6 Application and Knowledge of Law:2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant Basing decisions on evidence and Willing to reconsider error in fact or Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are Application and Knowledge of Law3. Communications:3a. Making sure all participants understand the Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well Communications4. Demeanor:4a. Giving proceedings a sense of Treating participants with Conducting the courtroom in a neutral Consistently applying laws and Demeanor5. Diligence:5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Average Grade:2015 Judicial Performance Interim ReportNote: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0.

7 An average score of is the highest possible score and a is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable.* Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim Patrick W. MurphyPatrick W. MurphyAll District Judges*PercentageSurvey of Attorneys Regarding District JudgesWould you say the judge is:5%10%Very biased in favor of the prosecution5%23%Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution71%49%Completely neutral0%10%Somewhat biased in favor of the defense14%3%Very biased in favor of the defense5%4%Don't know or not sureHow strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office?79%57%Strongly recommend retain14%22%Recommend retain7%9%Neither recommend nor not recommend retain0%6%Recommend not retain0%6%Strongly recommend not retainTotal RetainTotal Not Retain93%0%79%12%Neither7%9%2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report* Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim W.

8 MurphyAll District Judges*Average Grades 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. Overall Average Grade 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law Q3. Overall Communication 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when circumstances are similar. 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. Q1. Overall Case Management Judge Patrick W. Murphy Judge Patrick W.

9 Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Grades 5% 5% 71% 0% 14% 5% 10% 23% 49% 10% 3% 4% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%Very biased in favor of the prosecutionSomewhat biased in favor of the prosecutionCompletely NeutralSomewhat biased in favor of the defenseVery biased in favor of the defenseDon't know/not surePatrick W. MurphyAll District Judges*Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. Q4. Overall Demeanor 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4b. Treating participants with respect. 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. Q5. Overall Diligence 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant laws and rules.

10 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Judge Patrick W. Murphy * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report66 Judge MurphyAll Dist Judges*Total Retain93%79%Neither7%9%Total Not Retain0%12%79% 14% 7% 0% 0% 57% 22% 9% 6% 6% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Strongl y recommend retainRecommend retainNeither retain nor not retainRecommend not retainStrongly recommend not retainHow strongly do you recommend that Judge Murphy be retained or not retained in office? Patrick W. MurphyAll District Judges*Judge Patrick W.